Bill Nye The Science Guy vs Ken Ham

For reasons unknown to me, Bill Nye - Emmy Award winning educator and CEO of The Planetary Society - decided to humor everyone and attend a debate (which can be seen here) with Christian author Ken Ham at the Creation Museum. I don't really know what to say about it. The debate was inevitably filled with "Hamisms", illogical deductions, and embarrassing "points" made by Ham. Nye, bubbly and likable as ever, certainly held his own, and remained so extraordinarily respectful, you would almost believe he took Ham seriously. - an incredible feat considering the, uh, case he presented. Here are just a some points I'd like to make (the debate is long, so I've just picked a few random things).

"Hamisms"

These are things that Ham has become quite known for. For example the quote "Were you there?". Ham tries to provide solid arguments and rebuttals, but whenever he feels cornered i.e. he can't make an effective counter argument (which is a lot of the time) he asks "Were you there?" in the smuggest voice, as if to suggest that he just pulled the rug from under you. Listen up, Hammy: you cannot have a scientific debate about what happened in the past and then exclaim "Aha! But were you there?", or when Nye presented the story of what happened to the largest wooden ship built by the foremost experts of the time (long story short - it sank) and based on that questioned whether a man and a few other presumably much less skilled (obviously based on the science available at the time, education, resources etc.) individuals could actually have pulled off building the ark, Ham's counter argument was "But did you meet Noah? No. Neither did I. None of us have. So what do you really know about his skills?". Nye, why did you even bother?

Unsurprisingly, only one of them even mentioned dinosaurs in their presentation. Hint: it wasn't the one who would have difficulties explaining them.

Illogical deductions

Ham does seem to be a master at these. The question was asked "what was before the big bang?". Nye excitedly exclaims "we don't know!" with a big smile on his face, and starts talking about how wonderful and mysterious it is and how scientists are trying to figure it out (and a whole lot of other things - watch the debate). Anyway, in comes Ken Ham with his rebuttal "Actually there's a book out there that tells us where matter came from, "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" and really it's the only thing that makes sense." OK, let me get this straight: because we don't know something (yet), the only thing that makes sense is god? This sounds like caveman logic, Ham! Caveman logic (fire equals magic, sun equals god etc.) when applied to greater things (like how "everything" began) is still caveman logic!

Screen capture of Bill as Ham is making the aforementioned deduction. He is visibly impressed by Ham's logic and obviously agrees that it makes perfect sense.

Embarrassing points (listed in no particular order)

1. One point Ham made, was that there certainly were Christian scientists who agreed with the billions of years old model "model" of the earth, but many who didn't. Contrary to what many religious people think, being an atheist isn't about disproving religion, and if the evidence for a 6500 year old earth (which is what Ham believes) was overwhelming, we would accept that as the probable truth. This left me wondering: while there are Christians who agree with "our" view, do you think there is any atheist scientist who, based purely on "evidence", believes the earth is only 6500 years old, or am I rightfully assuming that the only, ahem, scientists who believe this based on whatever "evidence" they claim to have are in fact Christian scientists? If you know of any atheist scientists who believe the earth is 6500 years, please let me know. I would find that very interesting!

2. "You believe that when you die, it's over. So what's the point of discovery anyway? You'll never know you were here, and no one you knew will know they were ever here, so what's the point anyway. I love discovery, because this is God's creation, and I am finding out more about that" And this is why I feel so bad for many religious people. Because this - this is where we differ so greatly. To only value experience, knowledge, wisdom, discovery - life! - because you believe in an afterlife? It makes no sense! If anything, knowing that we only have this life and that it is so limited makes me appreciate it all so much more!

3. Ham made a very cringy statement about how amazing God is for creating the stars to show us how powerful he is. Christians may find that awe inspiring - I find it creepy, narcissistic, quite frankly it sounds like he's trying to cope with feelings of inadequacy. He also went on the usual rant about how amazing it is that God created faulty human beings and then sent his own son to die for sins he knew we'd commit. It's hard to fathom that he doesn't grasp how absolutely tragic that sounds.

4. He used the phrase: "The fact of Noah's flood". It's not a fact, Ken. It doesn't matter how convinced you are or how hard you believe it! Not. A. Fact. Use the correct terminology, please.

5. Ham was asked "what, if anything, would change your mind?". He couldn't answer this question. He went on a rant about a whole host of things that were completely unrelated, because ultimately the answer to this question is "nothing", and that's what poses the ultimate problem: as scientists we want challenges, we encourage change, we strive for discovery, and anything that can shake our world and completely throw us off our feet we embrace and rejoice in. We want our minds changed. This is why scientific debates can be so fulfilling! Many religious people (Ken Ham included), however, already know what they need to know, and any debate with them is certainly not so they can be enlightened.  They will only accept evidence that support what they already know, whereas a scientist will relish in that which challenges what is already established - it's what keeps things interesting! Of course there are scientists who drown in their own ego and would rather die than see their research refuted, but it's not the norm (just like gay bashing, funeral crashing people with signs saying "god hates fags" aren't the Christian norm). It should be mentioned that Nye offered up a whole host of things that would change him in an instant - trouble is it was all solid evidence, and we all know that is apparently very difficult for Creationists to produce (for good reasons).

6. But the absolute most embarrassing point was not one that was stated nor was it a new revelation to anyone who's ever watched or read anything by Ken Ham - he doesn't have the most basic grasp on what science is all about. He uses big words and likes to pretend, but essentially what he does is so far removed from actual science that it's embarrassing that he's even trying to market this as anything even remotely similar. One issue with Ham's version of "science" is that it deals only with the past. What is one of the most basic signs of good science? That we can accurately predict future outcomes based on what we know! What did Ham say about this when Nye addressed the issue? Nothing of course! Never responded to it. Another thing is that if you're going to make extraordinary claims and market them as science, you need to have very solid evidence backing up what you're saying (In fact in science, for any claim to be accepted, you always need very solid evidence). If Ken Ham had that we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Jesus showing of his amazing powers.

These were only some of the things that were discussed and stood out to me. I really recommend you watch the debate (here)! If you enjoyed this post, please tweet it, like it and share it with your friends!
Yours,